US 9198020

I'll search authoritative sources for US 9,198,020 and any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me dig into the 2026 Federal Circuit activity and any PTAB proceedings specifically involving the '020 patent.

Let me check for any PTAB or Federal Circuit proceedings specifically naming the '020 patent, and confirm the AT&T case details.

US 9,198,020 B2 — "OAMP for distributed mobile architecture"

Important caveat up front: No 2026 Federal Circuit docket, opinion, or order naming U.S. Patent 9,198,020 specifically was found in this search. There is a 2026 CAFC decision widely reported (Law360, Apr. 10, 2026) as involving a Lemko "distributed mobile architecture" patent, but that decision is Lemko Corp. v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.), No. 2024‑2336, a Rule 36 summary affirmance (Apr. 10, 2026) of PTAB IPR2023‑00531, which involves U.S. 7,855,988 — not the '020. Do not conflate the two. The only identified 2026 proceeding involving the '020 is the district-court track below.

Bibliographic data (from the patent record)

Abstract (as issued): A method includes receiving a first call to a mobile station at a first distributed mobile architecture gateway (dMAG), the mobile station accessible via the first dMAG. The method includes determining a routing path for the first call based on register data associated with the mobile station, the routing path including one or more components of the first dMAG, a first dMA node, and a private Internet Protocol (IP) network; sending one or more command messages to reserve those components; receiving one or more confirmation messages indicating the components are reserved; and connecting the first call to the mobile station via the reserved components.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has 16 claims. The independent claims are claim 1 (method), claim 9 (non‑transitory computer‑readable storage medium), and claim 13 (apparatus). All three recite substantively the same four-step call-routing method and the same four-part register‑data limitation; claims 9 and 13 differ only in claim format. (Note: the granted text contains typographical artifacts, e.g., "private Internet Protocol (IP network)" in claims 9 and 13 — reproduced literally here.)

Claim 1 – Method at a dMAG (call routing with resource reservation):

• Receive: A first dMAG — one of a plurality of dMAGs, each coupled to a dMAG interface of a legacy network — receives a call placed to a called mobile station that is reachable through that interface via the first dMAG.
• Determine route: The first dMAG determines a routing path for the call based on its own register data. The path includes (i) a component of the first dMAG, (ii) a component of a first dMA node belonging to one of several groups of dMA nodes (each group coupled to the legacy network through a different dMAG), and (iii) a component of a private IP network.
• Reserve: It sends command message(s) to reserve the dMAG component, the dMA‑node component, and the private‑IP‑network component.
• Confirm & connect: It receives confirmation message(s) that those components are reserved, then connects the call end‑to‑end through the reserved components.
• Key register‑data limitation (the heart of the claim): The register data comprises four distinct data sets: (1) data identifying dMA nodes local to the first dMAG (home dMA register); (2) data identifying dMA nodes visiting the first dMAG (visitor dMA register); (3) calling information for each mobile station local to a dMA node identified by the second (visitor) data; and (4) calling information for each mobile station visiting one of the dMA nodes identified by the second data. Critically, the first dMA node must be indicated by the second data (i.e., it is a roaming/visitor node), the called mobile station's calling information must appear in the third or fourth data, and the routing path must be determined based in part on that calling information.

Claim 9 – Non‑transitory computer‑readable storage medium: Processor-executed instructions performing the identical receive / determine-route / reserve / confirm / connect sequence, with the identical four‑part register‑data limitation and the same requirement that the first dMA node be indicated by the "visiting dMA nodes" data.

Claim 13 – Apparatus: A processor plus memory storing instructions that perform the identical operations, with the identical register‑data limitation.

Selected dependents (for context):

• Claims 2, 10, 14: the register data indicates the first dMA node is identified by a home dMA register of a second dMAG (i.e., the roaming node's home gateway tracks it).
• Claim 3: the routing path is also established from call traffic data on the private IP network, reflecting a second routing path of another call routed from the first dMAG to a second dMA node.
• Claim 4: provide multiple GUIs displaying the first and/or second routing paths.
• Claims 5–7: a master agent of the first dMAG issues resource-allocation queries to the dMAG component, the private IP network component, and the dMA node component; receives availability data in response; and (claim 7) may issue those queries before the call is received.
• Claim 8: configuration data is pushed to the dMAG, private‑IP‑network, and dMA‑node components before the call arrives.
• Claims 11, 15: register data is stored at the first dMAG.
• Claims 12, 16: register data includes IP addresses of the called mobile station, the first dMA node, and the private‑IP‑network component.

Litigation / administrative posture (as of this search)

• Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. et al., No. 2:25‑cv‑00305 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025‑03‑17, Judge Rodney Gilstrap). Lemko asserts seven patents against AT&T's "Private Edge 5G Network" / "Private Mobile Connection" offerings, and US 9,198,020 is one of the seven (along with 7,840,230; 7,979,066; 8,224,322; 8,310,990; 8,340,667; 8,359,029). The accused products center on servers running Microsoft's Azure Private 5G Core software. Google Patents links this case to the '020 family. Sources: Mondaq/webiis article "AT&T Hit In Lemko's Edge Computing Campaign" (May 9, 2025); Unified Patents litigation portal link for 2:25‑cv‑00305.
• No IPR naming the '020 was identified. The Lemko PTAB proceedings found in this search target other patents: IPR2023‑00529 (7,653,414), ‑00530 (7,548,763), ‑00531 (7,855,988), ‑00570 (9,191,980), and IPR2025‑01142 (8,310,990, Microsoft + AT&T Services). None is directed to 9,198,020.
• 2026 activity in the family/campaign (not the '020 itself):
  • CAFC No. 2024‑2336, Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. / Affirmed Networks, Inc. — Rule 36 judgment of affirmance issued April 10, 2026 (opinion PDF: cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2336...; docket: dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/24-2336). This appeal is from IPR2023‑00531 concerning U.S. 7,855,988.
  • Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 3:26‑cv‑01876 (N.D. Tex., assigned to Judge A. Joe Fish; per PacerMonitor, filed 2026, Lemko announced a "second patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft" on June 5, 2026). I could not confirm whether the '020 is asserted in this second Microsoft action — treat that as unverified.

Uncertainty flags

• No authoritative 2026 CAFC docket entry listing 9,198,020 was located. If such a docket exists, it did not surface in these searches.
• Whether the '020 is asserted in the 2026 Microsoft suit (3:26‑cv‑01876) is unverified.
• The '020's own validity has not been adjudicated by the PTAB or the Federal Circuit in anything found here; the well-publicized IPR/Fed. Cir. losses concern the related '988 and '990 patents, which share the same spec family and inventor.
• The 2030‑08‑29 "adjusted expiration" and "Active" status are Google Patents' automated labels, not legal conclusions; a Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC security agreement recorded 2025‑03‑25 encumbers the patent.

Primary sources: patents.google.com/patent/US9198020/en; CAFC 24‑2336 Rule 36 judgment; Unified Patents case link for 2:25‑cv‑00305; Mondaq on the AT&T suit; PTAB petitioner case list.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9198020 across the specified sources.

Let me search more specific sources.

Let me verify IPR proceedings and any other cases specifically involving the '020 patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,198,020

I searched litigation-focused sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, PACER docket aggregators, Darts-IP family-litigation link on Google Patents, Law360, and Federal Circuit/PTAB records). Here is what is confirmed for U.S. Patent No. 9,198,020 ("OAMP for Distributed Mobile Architecture"), which is owned by Lemko Corporation (Shaowei Pan, sole named inventor).

1. District Court Litigation (infringement)

Case: Lemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc., et al.

• Plaintiff: Lemko Corporation (an Illinois corporation)
• Defendants: AT&T Inc.; AT&T Enterprises LLC; AT&T Mobility LLC; AT&T Mobility LLC II; AT&T Services, Inc. (Defendants AT&T Communications LLC and AT&T Inc. were terminated 06/11/2025)
• Jurisdiction/Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
• Case No.: 2:25-cv-00305
• Presiding Judge: Hon. Rodney Gilstrap
• Filing Date: March 17, 2025
• Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement (Nature of Suit 830)
• Outcome / Status: Open / pending (docket last updated 04/13/2026). No judgment or final disposition identified.

Relevance to the '020 patent: The '020 patent is one of seven asserted patents in this case (the others are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,840,230; 7,979,066; 8,224,322; 8,310,990; 8,340,667; and 8,359,029). Per the complaint analysis, Lemko asserts at least claim 9 of the '020 patent, accusing AT&T's AT&T Private 5G Edge and AT&T Private Mobile Connection products (using Azure Private 5G Core, with the Session Management Function (SMF) alleged to establish the routing path and reserve user-plane/radio resources). Local counsel/lead firms reported: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP and Capshaw Derieux LLP.

Sources:

• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A25-cv-00305 (as flagged on the Google Patents litigation link)
• https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57258476/Lemko_Corporation_v_ATT_Inc_et_al
• https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-00305/doc/analysis/1
• https://webiis08.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[1622202](/patent/1622202)/ (AT&T Hit In Lemko's Edge Computing Campaign)

2. PTAB / IPR Proceedings

I found no inter partes review petition specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,198,020 in the records retrieved. IPR activity in the Lemko portfolio appears directed at other Lemko patents (e.g., IPR2025-01142 and IPR2025-01143, involving the '990 and related patents; IPR2023-00531, involving U.S. Patent No. 7,855,988). I could not confirm with high confidence that any IPR targets the '020 patent — treat this as unverified.

3. Family Litigation Flag

The Google Patents bibliographic page carries a "Family has litigation" flag with a Darts-IP link (family ID 41505102), consistent with the consolidated Lemko campaign described above.

Important Distinctions / Things This Is NOT

• The Lemko v. Microsoft / Affirmed Networks case (N.D. Tex., 3:22-cv-00363) does NOT assert the '020 patent. The Microsoft-asserted patents were 7,548,763; 7,653,414; 7,855,988; 8,107,409; 8,688,111; 9,191,980; 9,332,478; and 9,755,931. The Federal Circuit's April 10, 2026 Rule 36 affirmance (Appeal No. 24-2336, Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft) — and related PTAB invalidation of the '988 patent — concern other Lemko patents, not the '020 patent.
• A more recent Lemko v. Microsoft suit (N.D. Tex., 3:26-cv-01876, filed 06/05/2026) appears in dockets, but the searches did not confirm which patents it asserts; do not assume the '020 patent is included.
• The older Motorola v. Lemko case (N.D. Ill., 1:08-cv-05427) concerned patent ownership/inventorship of early Lemko applications and trade secrets; the '020 patent did not exist then (it issued Nov. 24, 2015), so it is not part of that case.

Bottom Line

One district court case is confirmed as asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,198,020: Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00305 (E.D. Tex., filed March 17, 2025, Judge Gilstrap) — currently pending, with the '020 patent pleaded at least via claim 9. No litigation outcome (judgment, settlement, or dismissal) has been identified. No IPR or other post-grant challenge to the '020 patent is confirmed, and the '020 patent does not appear in the Microsoft cases.

Caveats: Docket status can change quickly; PACER was last checked 04/13/2026 in the sources retrieved. Verify the current docket directly through PACER/Unified Patents if a filing-deadline-accurate status is required.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before drafting.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,198,020: 0. The USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for this patent, and targeted web checks (PTAB E2E/Docket Alarm/IPVerse/GreyB dockets; IPR petitions hosted at ptacts.uspto.gov; RPX/Law360 coverage of the Lemko campaign) surface no petition ever filed against the '020 patent. Status breakdown is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0.

Defensive posture: the '020 patent is untested and un-hardened at the PTAB. It has never been through an AIA trial, so there is no FWD, no cancelled claim, and no estoppel to lean on — but there is also no institutional bias for or against it, and the patent's siblings have fared badly at the Board (see below). Every claim of '020 — including independent claim 1, the computer-readable-medium claim 9, and the apparatus claim 13 — is currently live and presumptively valid. A defendant cannot say "the claims are already dead"; it must build its own challenge.

---

No proceedings on file for US 9,198,020

There is nothing to report at the claim level: no petition number, no institution decision, no FWD, no appeal. Do not accept any third-party summary that attributes a PTAB outcome to the '020 patent.

Naming trap — read this before you rely on anything. Two Lemko patents in this campaign have near-identical numbers and are frequently confused:

• US 8,310,990 ("Methods and devices for routing communications between distributed mobile architecture servers") — is under IPR (IPR2025-01142).
• US 7,855,988 — is under IPR (IPR2023-00531) and has a Federal Circuit appeal.
• US 9,191,980 — asserted against Microsoft/Affirmed in N.D. Tex. 3:22-cv-00363; a different patent from '020.
• US 9,198,020 ("OAMP for distributed mobile architecture," Pan, filed 2011-12-22, granted 2015-11-24, adjusted expiry 2030-08-29) — asserted against AT&T in E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00305 and not the subject of any AIA trial.

Source confirming the assertion set and that '020 travels with the AT&T case, not the Microsoft case: RPX, AT&T Hit In Lemko's Edge Computing Campaign (2025-05-09), https://webiis08.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[1622202](/patent/1622202)/ ; litigation link indexed on the patent page, https://patents.google.com/patent/US9198020/en .

---

Related proceedings against sibling Lemko patents (context only — none involve '020)

These matter because the '020 patent shares the Shaowei Pan / distributed-mobile-architecture specification family, and the Board's claim-construction treatment of "distributed mobile architecture" and the DMA-gateway register concepts will be the first thing any '020 petitioner reuses. None of these proceedings challenges, cancels, or binds any claim of US 9,198,020.

IPR2023-00531 — Microsoft Corporation and Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko Corporation

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent: US 7,855,988 (not '020)
• Filed: 2023-02-14
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, appealed (PTAB docket status "Final Written Decision – Appealed"; Docket Alarm lists termination 2024-09-10)
• Judge panel: Frances L. Ippolito, Brian D. Range, Scott Raevsky (Raevsky authored)
• Petition grounds: Claims 1, 3–9, and 20 unpatentable under pre-AIA § 102 over U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0021120 A1 to Flore. Pet. relied on the Proctor declaration; PO relied on Dr. Todor Cooklev.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1, 3–9, 20 (Paper 8).
• Final Written Decision (Paper 31, 2024-09-10): all challenged claims unpatentable — "we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–9, and 20 are unpatentable." The panel declined Lemko's narrow construction of "distributed mobile architecture" (no disclaimer/lexicography) and held Flore discloses "communications information … indicating one or more devices accessible by one of a DMA server and a legacy communications network," including the point that separately recited terms need not be mutually exclusive. Full text: http://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/IPR2023-00531.pdf ; docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00531/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Lemko_Corp/
• Settlement/termination: None — decided on the merits.
• Appeal: Yes. Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., No. 24-2336 (Fed. Cir.); Lemko's opening and reply briefs (2025-01-29) argued the Board erred by failing to construe "distributed mobile architecture" and by misconstruing "communications information." Law360 reported (2026-04-10) that the Federal Circuit affirmed, backing the Board's invalidity finding: "Lemko Corp. lost its bid to revive claims in a distributed mobile architecture patent after the Federal Circuit backed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's finding that Microsoft was able to show the claims were invalid." https://www.law360.com/telecom/news
• Defensive value (for '020): Not binding on '020, but it is the single most useful roadmap — the Flore reference and the Board's refusal to read "distributed" narrowly are the template a '020 petitioner would start from.

IPR2025-01142 — Microsoft Corporation and AT&T Services, Inc. v. Lemko Corporation

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent: US 8,310,990 (a continuation of the '988 patent; not '020)
• Filed: 2025-06-20
• Status: Discretionary denial (IPVerse reports status "Discretionary Denial," institution-decision date 2025-11-20). https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-01142
• Challenged claims: 1, 3–9
• Grounds: Single ground — § 102 anticipation by Flore (Ex1005), same art and mapping used in IPR2023-00531; Petitioner also relied on 3GPP TS 23.002 v7.1.0 (Ex1006) and the '988 FWD (Ex1007).
• Dispositive fight: Lemko filed a Request for Discretionary Denial invoking Fintiv factors and § 325(d), emphasizing twelve-plus years of settled expectations, AT&T's long knowledge of Lemko's product-marked tech, and prior rejection of Microsoft's hardware/software arguments in the -00530 IPR. Petitioners countered on the March 26, 2025 Director Memorandum and the then-Acting Director's 2025-09-16 memorandum on prior Office findings, arguing the '990 claims are substantially identical to the already-invalidated '988 claims. Petitions and briefing: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558047](/patent/1558047)/
• Defensive value (for '020): This is the most directly analogous fact pattern to an '020 petition — a Lemko DMA patent asserted against AT&T in E.D. Tex. and hit with a Flore-based IPR. Note that the Board/ Director denied institution here on discretionary grounds; a defendant contemplating an '020 IPR should not assume the Board will again decline.

Other Lemko-family AIA activity (identified but not fully verified)

Board dockets and petitions also reference IPR2023-00529 (US 7,653,414) and IPR2023-00530 (US 7,548,763), both filed by Microsoft/Affirmed in the same February 2023 wave. I have not independently confirmed the institution decisions or final dispositions in those two proceedings, and I will not state a claim-level outcome for them here. What is confirmed: in -00529 Lemko's Patent Owner Response argued that Waylett's "network-in-a-box" fails the computer-readable-medium limitation because its functions are implemented in hardware — an argument that the Board has accepted before. Verified excerpts: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00529/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Lemko_Corp/

---

Strategic summary

Claim status for US 9,198,020. No claim of '020 has been cancelled, narrowed, or held unpatentable by the PTAB or by any court. All 16 issued claims — independent claim 1 (method), claim 9 (non-transitory CRM), claim 13 (apparatus), and their dependents (2–8, 10–12, 14–16) — are UNTESTED and live. Any statement that claims 1–5 (or any other claims) of '020 are canceled is wrong. The claims that have been invalidated are in other patents ('988 claims 1, 3–9, 20).

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaching to '020, because no petitioner has been through an AIA trial on it. Conversely, a defendant currently being sued on '020 cannot borrow any estoppel to its benefit. What is available is the flip side: Lemko is not estopped on any construction of '020's terms, but the Board's construction of "distributed mobile architecture" in the '988 FWD — and its affirmance on appeal — is now the Office's and the Federal Circuit's settled reading of a term that appears verbatim in '020's specification and claims. Any '020 petitioner should expect Lemko to re-argue its rejected narrow construction and should pre-empt that argument in the petition.

Timing / statutory bars — the gating issue. Lemko's complaint against AT&T, Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00305 (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), was filed 2025-03-17. Under § 315(b), a petition by a party served with that complaint is time-barred one year after service. If service occurred in the ordinary course (spring 2025), that window would have closed around March–mid-2026 — i.e., before today's date of 2026-09-29. I do not have a verified service date and will not guess at one; confirm it from the docket immediately, because it controls whether a unilateral IPR is even available or whether you must pursue joinder, a § 315(b) exception, or invalidity in district court instead.

Pattern signals. (1) The same petitioner group — Microsoft + Affirmed Networks, later joined by AT&T Services — has filed at least four IPRs across the Lemko DMA portfolio (-00529, -00530, -00531, and -01142), so this is a coordinated defense campaign, not a one-off. (2) Lemko does appeal adverse FWDs — it briefed and argued the '988 appeal (Fed. Cir. 24-2336) and lost on 2026-04-10 — so a '020 FWD against Lemko would likely be appealed too, adding ~18 months before finality. (3) There is no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar petitioner) anywhere in the '020 or sibling chains; the '020 case is a plain operating-company-versus-operating-company fight. (4) The '020 is not among the patents Lemko asserted against Microsoft, which is why it escaped the 2023 IPR wave and remains pristine.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the § 315(b) clock first. Pull the E.D. Tex. docket for 2:25-cv-00305 and the actual date of service on your entity. If you are within one year of service, a straight IPR on '020 is still possible; if not, plan around joinder with an existing petitioner, a § 315(b) exception, or a district-court invalidity case. This is the single decisive fact and it is not in the structured ODP data.
2. There is no FWD to link for '020. Do not cite one. If opposing counsel or a demand letter suggests the '020 claims have already been invalidated, the correct response is that the only Lemko FWDs in this family are against the '988 and related patents, and that the '020 is a different patent (divisional of 12/171,840, which issued as US 8,107,409) with different claims.
3. Build the petition on the '988 FWD record, not on it alone. The Flore reference (US 2007/0021120 A1) and the Proctor declaration that the Board credited in IPR2023-00531, together with the affirmed Federal Circuit construction of "distributed mobile architecture," give you a ready-made § 102/§ 103 foundation and a POSITA framing. But '020's claims are OAMP-flavored — home/visitor dMA node registers, third-party HLR/VLR data for visiting mobile stations, and reservation of "at least one component of the private IP network" along a routing path (claim 1; see the full claim set at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9198020/en). Expect Lemko to argue Flore's handover context does not teach reserving network components or the four-register data structure. Map every limitation, including the "third data"/"fourth data" register limitation and the private-IP-network component reservation, or the petition will fail at institution.
4. Check whether the parent '409 patent was ever petitioned. US 8,107,409 was in the Microsoft-asserted set; if an IPR exists on the '409, its FWD on the shared specification is highly probative for '020 under § 325(d) and the 2025-09-16 Acting Director memorandum on prior Office findings. My searches did not surface a '409 IPR — treat that as "unverified," not "none."
5. Watch IPR2025-01142. Its institution decision (2025-11-20) is the closest available read on how the Board will treat a Fintiv/§ 325(d)-resistant Lemko DMA patent being asserted against AT&T in E.D. Tex. Its reasoning will be cited by both sides on '020.

Bottom line for a defendant today: the '020 is an untested patent with no PTAB history — no cancellations to hide behind, no estoppel to borrow, and a clean but non-trivial path to an IPR that must be filed (or joined) subject to a § 315(b) deadline that may already have run. Prioritize verifying the service date above all else.

I'll research the ownership chain for US 9198020, starting with the recorded assignments and litigation.

Let me dig into the security agreement and Lemko's corporate history.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 9,198,020 B2

Scope note / data limitation (read first): I was not able to open a live assignmentcenter.uspto.gov or assignment.uspto.gov record for this patent during this research pass, so I do not have verified reel/frame numbers, execution dates, or correspondent-of-record for the recordings below, and I will not invent them. The assignment events set out here are drawn from the Google Patents "Legal Events" panel (which mirrors USPTO assignment data) and are corroborated against the E.D. Tex. complaint. Where a field could not be verified, it is marked NOT RETRIEVED rather than guessed. Verification URL: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 9198020) and https://patents.google.com/patent/US9198020/en (Legal Events panel).

---

Inventors

Unusual pattern check: Not present. The classic warning sign — all inventors leaving the original assignee within 12 months of filing (a precursor to portfolio fire-sales) — does not apply: there is only one inventor, he is the assignee's principal, and he never left. He is still the named inventor-principal on the 2025 assertion. That is the opposite of the abandonment pattern; it is a founder-controlled, still-operating portfolio.

---

Original assignee

Lemko Corporation (Schaumburg / Itasca, Illinois; incorporated in Illinois 2002 per Mondaq, marketed as "founded 2004").

• Line of business: Distributed Mobile Architecture (DMA) / Network Functions Virtualization software and edge-core network products. Lemko's own materials describe the "Node1" and "Node2" product lines and hardware such as the X4T20 portable ODC and EM-50 LTE Mini, marketed for private 4G/5G, rural broadband, military and public-safety deployments — https://www.lemkocorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lemko-Node1-X4T20.pdf
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes, on the record. In the AT&T action, Lemko pleads that it marked its patent-practicing products under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) with stickers identifying the asserted patents (including the '020 Patent) and identified them in product documentation: "At all times Lemko has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) by marking its patent-practicing products…" (Compl. ¶¶ 42–43, E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00305, via https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558047](/patent/1558047)/download-documents?artifactId=VsKv6tFFfvFM6o8XNOjBHAOH3rd8DwbnAjiLCtpvxXR3sBXHN7Wcepc). Lemko's briefs further describe commercial deployment of Node1/Node2 based on these inventions.
• Current status: Operating. Not dissolved, not acquired, not in bankruptcy on any record I found. It is actively litigating as plaintiff in 2025–2026 and publicly announced the AT&T suit: https://www.lemkocorp.com/lemko-corporation-files-patent-infringement-lawsuit-against-att/

---

Assignment timeline

Two recorded events are visible on the patent's legal-events record. Both are listed. Reel/frame and correspondent were not retrievable from the sources I could access.

• 2011-12-22 (executed/recorded date as indexed) — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: PAN, SHAOWEI
  • Assignee: LEMKO CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED — cannot assess recurrence; no repeated-recording pattern can be asserted on this record.
  • Context: Routine founder/inventor-to-company assignment, filed contemporaneously with the 2011-12-22 filing of divisional application 13/334,753. (The '020 is a divisional of Ser. No. 12/171,840, filed 2008-07-11, which issued as US 8,107,409 — the benefit chain is uncontested.) https://patents.google.com/patent/US9198020/en

• 2025-03-25 — Reel NOT RETRIEVED

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement (a security interest, not a conveyance of title)
  • Assignor: LEMKO CORPORATION
  • Assignee: PICCADILLY PATENT FUNDING LLC, AS SECURITY HOLDER
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVED
  • Context: Securitization / collateral pledge. Lemko pledged its patent rights to a patent-funding entity to secure financing. Crucially, this is a recorded lien, not an ownership transfer — legal title remained with Lemko, and the 2025 complaint pleads that "Lemko is the owner by assignment of the '020 Patent" (Compl. ¶ 34). Google Patents legal events: "Assigned to PICCADILLY PATENT FUNDING LLC, AS SECURITY HOLDER … PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT … Assignors: LEMKO CORPORATION."

No other post-issuance assignments exist on the record. There is no sale, no transfer to a licensing LLC, and no cascading chain. The 2025-03-25 lien is the sole post-issuance recording in the patent's ~10-year life.

Litigation anchors (for the timeline):

• 2022-02-14 — Lemko Corp. v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.) et al., No. 3:22-cv-363-K (N.D. Tex.) — asserts sibling patents ('763, '414, '988, '409, '111, '980, '478, '931); the '020 is not asserted here.
• 2025-03-17 — Lemko Corp. v. AT&T Inc. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00305 (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap). Asserts the '020 Patent plus '230, '066, '322, '990, '667, '029. Complaint at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558047/download-documents; venue-transfer denial 2026-03-06 (Doc. 79) at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00305/[236690](/patent/236690)/79/

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9198020
    2011 : Application filed by Lemko
         : Pan assigns rights to Lemko
    2015 : Patent issued to Lemko
    2022 : Lemko sues Microsoft on sibling patents
    2025 : Lemko sues ATandT asserting 020
         : Patent pledged to Piccadilly Patent Funding

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignment of title from the operating assignee to a licensing LLC. The only post-issuance recording (2025-03-25, Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC, "as security holder," conveyance = Patent Security Agreement) is a lien, not a sale, and the assignee is expressly captioned a collateral holder. Lemko remained record owner and pleaded ownership in the 2025 complaint (¶ 34).

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT (with one note). Neither Lemko Corporation nor Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC appears on the enumerated lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities), and Lemko is not surfaced by Unified Patents as a high-frequency plaintiff — it is a two-suit campaign (Microsoft/Affirmed 2022; AT&T 2025). Note, however, that Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC appears alongside Davidson Kempner Capital Management LP as a participant in patent dockets (see dockets.justia.com, NOS 830 listing; and the ILFA amicus submission at uscourts.gov referencing a Piccadilly funding agreement), i.e. it is a litigation-finance vehicle, not an asserted NPE owner. That is a funding relationship, not a known-asserter match.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / INSUFFICIENT DATA. I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record for either recording, so I cannot test for a recurring recording attorney. Given only two recordings exist across 14 years, a recurrence finding is unlikely regardless, but I will not state it without the correspondent data.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Exactly one post-issuance recording (2025-03-25) in the patent's life. There is no chain of LLC-to-LLC hops, no sub-24-month sequence, and no common-principal pattern to report.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The security agreement is indexed 2025-03-25, which is eight days after the 2025-03-17 filing of 2:25-cv-00305 — post-filing, not the classic 6-months-before-filing assignment used to set up standing/venue. Standing is grounded in the original 2011 inventor→Lemko assignment, and the pledge did not move title.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT (no record found). I found no Chapter 7/11 filing for Lemko Corporation. Lemko is filing and prosecuting new suits in 2025–2026 and publishing a product catalog, which is inconsistent with a distressed wind-down. (The Piccadilly financing may indicate capital constraints, but a financing lien alone is not evidence of bankruptcy — no inference drawn.)

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Lemko sues in its own name against parties it identifies as competitors, and states that AT&T "forced Lemko to compete against its own technology in the marketplace" (Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial, IPR2025-01142, dated 2025-09-08). That is direct assertion by the operating patentee, not a proxy NPE asserting on a benefactor's behalf — the direction is the reverse: Lemko funded its own assertion via a collateral pledge.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. No RPX / AST / LOT / OIN / Unified Patents involvement in the chain. The patent remains an offensive asset.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

US 9,198,020 has never left its original owner: the only inventor assignment is ShaoWei Pan → Lemko Corporation at filing (2011-12-22), and the only post-issuance recording is the 2025-03-25 patent security agreement to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC "as security holder" — a lien, not a transfer of title, which left Lemko as record owner and plaintiff. Lemko is an operating vendor that markets Node1/Node2 and marks its products with the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶ 42–43), and it is suing named competitors — AT&T in 2:25-cv-00305 (filed 2025-03-17, asserting the '020 Patent) and Microsoft/Affirmed Networks in 3:22-cv-363-K. There is no shell-entity transfer, no known NPE in the chain, no cascading LLC chain, and no bankruptcy sale; the single litigation-finance link is a funding arrangement with the operating plaintiff, which the framework treats as a nuance rather than an NPE signal.

Caveat on completeness: the correspondent-of-record and reel/frame identifiers could not be verified, and the Piccadilly lien instrument itself should be pulled to confirm its scope (patents encumbered, covenants, any assignment-in-lieu language). Verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by searching patent number 9198020, and cross-check the litigation-interest disclosures in 2:25-cv-00305.

I'll start by searching for the specific patent and its citation records.

I have substantial citation data. Let me verify details on the most technically relevant references before analyzing.

Prior‑Art Analysis — US 9,198,020 B2 ("OAMP for Distributed Mobile Architecture")

Prepared: April 26, 2026 · Analyst: Technical Patent Analyst

---

1. Scope, sources, and interpretation notes

Patent under analysis (literal):

• US 9,198,020 B2 — "OAMP for distributed mobile architecture"
• Application 13/334,753, filed 2011‑12‑22; granted 2015‑11‑24
• Priority 2008‑07‑11 via parent US 12/171,840 (issued as US 8,107,409 B2) — the '020 patent is a division
• Inventor: Shaowei Pan · Original/current assignee: Lemko Corporation (per Google Patents; a 2025‑03‑25 security‑interest assignment to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC is recorded)
• Primary examiner: Omer S Mian (Justia)
• Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9198020/en ; citation list cross‑checked at https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9198020](/patent/9198020)
• Post‑AIA note: because priority is 2008‑07‑11, pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)/(b)/(e) governs.

Important disambiguation (literal‑interpretation rule). Web searches for the string "919" return several unrelated documents that are not US 9,198,020:

• a Neo Wireless LLC IPR petition referring to "the 919 Patent" that is actually US 10,447,450 B2 (MU‑MIMO channel sounding) — not this patent;
• a baby‑crib invalidity declaration referring to a different "919 Patent".

Neither is used in this report. All analysis below is tied to US 9,198,020 B2 only.

Citation universe. The '020 patent's face lists 197 cited references (US patents, US application publications, foreign documents CN 1427637 / EP 0 365 885 / WO 2007/102003, plus non‑patent literature). "Cited By (1)" (US 11,997,762 B2, Comcast) and the 21 "Families Citing this family" documents are later publications and therefore not prior art to the '020 patent; they are excluded from the § 102 analysis.

Because 197 items cannot be individually treated with equal depth, this report (a) identifies the most materially relevant references, (b) supplies full citation / dates / description / potentially‑anticipated claims for each, and (c) groups the remainder with a relevance assessment. No single cited reference appears to disclose every limitation of independent claims 1, 9, or 13 — the realistic statutory exposure is § 102 for the register‑data sub‑limitations and § 103 for the full independent claims.

---

2. The claims at issue (for mapping)

The three register‑data categories (i)–(iv) correspond directly to the home dMA register, visitor dMA register, visitor‑dMA‑node HLR, and visitor‑dMA‑node VLR tables described in the specification (FIG. 5, databases 508, 510, 512, 514, 516, 518).

---

3. TIER 1 — Most relevant: the Lemko "distributed mobile architecture" family (same field, largely same inventor)

These are the closest references. Several predate the 2008‑07‑11 priority and are § 102(b)/(e) art; those filed after 2008‑07‑11 (e.g., the 2008‑07‑13/14 "routing calls" filings) are not § 102 art to the '020 patent and are relevant only as context.

3.1 US 8,046,420 B2 — System and method to control wireless communications

• Citation: US 8,046,420 B2, Pan, Shaowei; assignee Lemko Corporation; App. 12/108,209 filed 2008‑04‑23; granted 2011‑10‑25; pub. US 2009/0271491 A1 (2009‑10‑29).
• Description: A DMAG routes calls between legacy networks and DMA servers over a private IP network; the DMAG holds register data and a routing module; the DMA server holds a device register. Discloses conversion between legacy protocols and IP, and DMAG→DMA‑server packet routing (Fig. 3, Fig. 6).
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 (the "determining a routing path … based on register data of the first dMAG … component of the first dMAG, first dMA node, and private IP network" elements); claim 11; claim 12 (IP‑address‑based routing); claims 13/15/16.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8046420 (PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c6/17/b2/caddf5ec2a2302/US8046420.pdf)

3.2 US 8,340,667 B2 — System and method to control wireless communications

• Citation: US 8,340,667 B2, Pan; assignee Lemko Corporation; priority 2008‑06‑26; granted 2012‑12‑25.
• Description: DMAG with Home DMA Server Register, Visitor DMA Server Register, and community DMA server register containing HLRs and VLRs per DMAG (Figs. 5A–5C); routing of legacy‑network voice traffic to the DMA server serving the target device. This is the single best structural match to claim 1's four‑category register‑data clause.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 1 (register‑data "wherein" clause — data identifying local dMA nodes, visiting dMA nodes, and the HLR/VLR calling information for mobile stations of visiting dMA nodes); claims 11, 13, 15; supports claim 2 (cross‑dMAG home register).
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8340667 (PDF: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/40/5c/7f/2ce654a8dc40d3/US8340667.pdf)

3.3 US 8,224,322 B2 — Roaming mobile subscriber registration in a distributed mobile architecture

• Citation: US 8,224,322 B2, Pan; assignee Lemko Corporation; priority 2006‑06‑12; granted 2012‑07‑17.
• Description: Registration of roaming mobile subscribers into a dMA network — visitor‑node handling of mobile stations foreign to the local dMA node.
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 2 and the claim‑1 "mobiles visiting a dMA node identified by the second data" element; § 102(b) publication counterpart US 2012/0252444 A1 (2012‑10‑04) post‑dates priority.
• URL (family view): https://patents.google.com/patent/US8224322

3.4 US 7,486,967 B2 — System, method, and device for providing communications using a distributed mobile architecture

• Citation: US 7,486,967 B2, Labun, Nicholas; Pan, Shaowei; assignee Lemko Corporation; priority 2005‑04‑12/13; granted 2009‑02‑03.
• Description: A DMA server housing an MSC module and a BSC module, directly connected to a BTS, establishing peer‑to‑peer IP connections to remote DMA servers.
• Potentially anticipates: the "first dMA node" and "private IP network" components of claim 1; the apparatus architecture of claims 13/16; strong § 103 primary reference. § 102(b) exposure via its 2006 publication.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7486967

3.5 US 7,539,158 B2 — System, method and device for providing communications using a distributed mobile architecture

• Citation: App. 10/983,516 filed 2004‑11‑08; granted 2009‑05‑26; pub. US 2006/0098661 A1 (2006‑05‑11) — a § 102(b) printed publication.
• Description: Multiple DMA servers, each embedding MSC + BSC functionality in a computer‑readable medium, interconnected over an IP network, telephony traffic switched and routed at the DMA servers.
• Potentially anticipates: the distributed‑node and IP‑interconnect elements of claims 1 and 13; § 103 art for the peer‑to‑peer switching concept.
• URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7539158B2](/patent/US7539158B2)/

3.6 US 7,548,763 B2, US 7,856,233 B2, US 7,653,414 B2, US 2006/0234747 A1, US 2006/0234774 A1, US 2007/0202847 A1, US 2007/0287452 A1 (Pan / Lemko)

• US 7,548,763 B2 — Pan; priority 2005‑04‑13; granted 2009‑06‑16 (communications using a DMA).
• US 7,856,233 B2 — Pan; priority 2006‑03‑30; granted 2010‑12‑21 (system, method, device for communications using a DMA).
• US 7,653,414 B2 — Pan; App. 11/362,395 filed 2006‑02‑24; granted 2010‑01‑26; pub. US 2007/0202847 A1 (2007‑08‑30). Discloses a destination‑preference register governing the preferred call path (VoIP / MSC / ISDN) for calls leaving the dMA network — relevant to claim 1's routing‑path selection and to claim 3 (path selection based on traffic data).
• US 2006/0234747 A1 (Pan, pub. 2006‑10‑19) and US 2006/0234774 A1 (Pan et al., pub. 2006‑10‑19): § 102(b) publications of the dMA system.
• US 2007/0287452 A1 (Pan, pub. 2007‑12‑13): further dMA publication, § 102(b).
• Potentially anticipate: claims 1, 3, 13 (routing‑path determination / preferred path); § 103 combinations across the family.

3.7 The '020 patent's own family (NOT prior art — flagged to avoid double‑counting)

• US 8,107,409 B2 (parent, priority 2008‑07‑11) and its publication US 2010/0008306 A1 ("OAMP for Distributed Mobile Architecture," Lemko) share the '020 disclosure and are not § 102 art to the '020 patent.

---

4. TIER 2 — Home/visitor register (HLR/VLR) and subscriber‑data management

These map to the "register data" limitations of claim 1 and to claims 2, 11, 12.

---

5. TIER 3 — Legacy‑network interworking, call routing, and gateway references

Relevant to claim 1's "received … from a legacy communication network … via a dMAG interface" and to the routing module.

---

6. TIER 4 — Distributed / peer‑to‑peer and micro‑cellular base‑station architectures

These support the "dMA node + private IP network" architecture and are § 103‑type art, and § 102 art for isolated limitations.

---

7. TIER 5 — Resource reservation / session signaling / admission control

These bear on the most distinctive limitations of claim 1 — "sending one or more command messages to reserve" and "receiving one or more confirmation messages" — and on claims 5–8 (master‑agent resource‑allocation queries and pre‑provisioning).

---

8. TIER 6 — Non‑patent literature and foreign documents

These are § 102(b) printed publications or general background and are more naturally § 103 secondary references than anticipators:

• Hoffpauir et al., Statutory Invention Registration H1,918, "Integrated Authentication Center and Method for Authentication in a Wireless Telecommunications Network," published 2000‑11‑07 (19 pp.).
• B. Goode, "Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP)," Proc. IEEE, vol. 90, no. 9, Sep. 2002, pp. 1495–1517.
• I. F. Akyildiz, X. Wang, W. Wang, "Wireless Mesh Networks: A Survey," Computer Networks 47, 2005, pp. 445–487.
• N. Banerjee, S. K. Das, A. Acharya, "Peer‑to‑peer SIP‑based Services over Wireless Ad Hoc Networks," BroadWiM, Oct. 29, 2004.
• R. Pabst et al., "Relay‑Based Deployment Concepts for Wireless and Mobile Broadband Radio," IEEE Communications Magazine, Sep. 2004, pp. 80–89.
• H. Yanikomeroglu, D. D. Falconer, V. M. Sreng, "Coverage Enhancement Through Two‑Hop Peer‑to‑Peer Relaying in Cellular Radio Networks," WWRF Meeting #7, Dec. 3–4, 2002.
• W. Kellerer, H.‑J. Vögel, K.‑E. Steinberg, "A Communication Gateway for Infrastructure Independent Wireless Access," IEEE Communications Magazine, Mar. 2002.
• H.‑Y. Wei, R. D. Gitlin, "Two‑Hop‑Relay Architecture for Next‑Generation WWAN/WLAN Integration," IEEE Wireless Communications, Apr. 2004.
• B. G. Evans, K. Baughan, "Visions of 4G," Electronics & Communication Engineering Journal, Dec. 2000, pp. 293–303.
• ITU‑R Recommendation M.1645, "Framework and Overall Objectives of the Future Development of IMT‑2000 and Systems Beyond IMT‑2000," Jun. 2003.
• EP 0 365 885 B1 (Motorola), "Satellite cellular telephone and data communication system," granted 1995‑09‑13 (pub. 1990‑05‑02).
• CN 1427637 A (Samsung), Jul. 2003; WO 2007/102003 A1 (Ghost Telecom), Sep. 2007 (SIM/multiple‑IMSI interworking).

Potentially anticipates: individual claims only in combination; principally § 103 secondary art. None appears to disclose the claimed dMAG register‑data + command/confirmation reservation combination.

---

9. Claim‑by‑claim § 102 exposure matrix (condensed)

---

10. References cited but not materially relevant to the '020 claims

A large fraction of the 197 citations are directed to unrelated subject matter and should be discounted (they appear because of broad Art‑Unit search strings): e.g., US 2001/0013050 A1 (buddy‑list aggregation), US 2002/0061746 A1, US 6,671,?‑family (ISP computer services), US 6,706,? / US 6,877,? billing and messaging documents, US 2005/0044? address‑book/instant‑messaging items, US 2007/0230352 A1 (multipath routing for large data transfers), and the "premature detonation of improvised explosive devices" documents (US 2007/0212? / US 2007/0232304 A1 / US 2007/0234892 A1). Also cited are a number of Pan/Lemko documents filed after 2008‑07‑11 (e.g., US 7,855,988 B2 and US 8,310,990 B2, priority 2008‑07‑13/14; US 7,979,066 B2, priority 2008‑09‑25), which are not § 102 art to the '020 patent because of the later priority dates.

---

11. Bottom line and caveats

1. Closest prior art overall: the Lemko Corporation dMA/DMAG family — especially US 8,340,667 B2 and US 8,046,420 B2 (register‑data and DMAG routing), with US 7,486,967 B2, US 7,539,158 B2, US 7,548,763 B2, US 7,653,414 B2, and US 8,224,322 B2 supplying the distributed‑node, peer‑to‑peer‑IP, roaming and preferred‑path teachings.
2. For the HLR/VLR‑style register limitations (claim 1 "wherein" clause; claim 2), US 5,713,073 A and US 6,731,932 B1 are the strongest third‑party references.
3. For the reservation command/confirmation limitations (claim 1) and the master‑agent queries (claims 5–7), the best cited art is the session‑signaling/reservation literature — US 2005/0220054 A1, US 2005/0249176 A1, US 2006/0047836 A1.
4. No single cited reference appears to disclose every limitation of claims 1, 9 or 13. The record therefore supports § 103 challenges (combinations of the Lemko family with the HLR/VLR and/or reservation references) more strongly than § 102 anticipation, with discrete § 102 exposure only for the register‑data and IP‑addressing sub‑limitations (claims 1, 11, 12) and claim 2.
5. Confidence note: dates and titles above are taken from the '020 patent's own citation record and from Google Patents/Justia pages (cited URLs). Two items warrant a face‑list re‑check before being relied on in a filing: the precise citation status of US 7,924,713 B2 (it appears in overlapping Lemko citation tables) and the inventor/priority listing discrepancies for US 7,486,967 B2 (2005‑04‑12 vs. 2005‑04‑13) and the parent's own publication number (US 2010/0008306 A1). I did not independently verify the full text of all 197 references; references beyond Tiers 1–6 are characterized at group level only.

Primary sources

• https://patents.google.com/patent/US9198020/en
• https://patents.justia.com/patent/9198020
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US7486967
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US7539158B2/
• https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c6/17/b2/caddf5ec2a2302/US8046420.pdf
• https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/40/5c/7f/2ce654a8dc40d3/US8340667.pdf
• https://patents.google.com/patent/US5713073
• https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/17/d9/dd/e4711745857c86/US8310990.pdf

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art references listed on the patent page. Let me pull details on the key references.

Let me pull the two examiner-cited non-Lemko references and a Lemko reference on call-path preference.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,198,020 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Patent: US 9,198,020 B2, "OAMP for distributed mobile architecture," Lemko Corp., sole inventor ShaoWei Pan
Priority: 2008‑07‑11 (divisional of Ser. No. 12/171,840, filed 2008‑07‑11, now US 8,107,409)
Filed: 2011‑12‑22 · Granted: 2015‑11‑24 · Adjusted expiration: 2030‑08‑29 · Status: Active
Litigation of record on the page: E.D. Tex. 2:25‑cv‑00305; security interest to Piccadilly Patent Funding LLC (2025‑03‑25).
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9198020/en

---

0. Scope and evidentiary caveats

Three things must be said up front, because they materially affect the analysis:

1. The "Prior Art section" of the page is two different things. (a) "Citations (197)" — the references cited on the face of the patent (backward art). (b) "Families Citing this family (21)" — a forward citation table (later documents citing the '020 family). Forward citations are not prior art. The supplied page text truncates the backward list at US20070271606A1, so I can only work with the references visible in the excerpt plus general knowledge of the named documents.
2. The '020's own parent (US 8,107,409) and sibling publication (US 2010/0008306 A1) are the same family and are not prior art. Notably, the '020's FIG. 5 register table is materially identical to FIG. 5 of the parent's publication — which matters for what the family itself treats as known.
3. Pre‑AIA § 103 governs (effective filing date 2008‑07‑11). That makes pre‑AIA § 103(c) (common ownership / same inventive entity) live, and it is the single biggest obstacle to an obviousness attack here, as discussed in §2.

I could not verify the full text of every cited reference (notably US 2007/0202847 A1 and US 7,653,414); where I rely on those I flag the confidence level.

---

1. POSITA

A person of ordinary skill in the art as of July 2008 would be a telecommunications engineer with ~2–4 years' experience in (i) mobile core network call control (MSC/BSC, SS7 ISUP, ANSI‑41/GSM MAP, HLR/VLR/GLR roaming databases), (ii) packet transport of voice over IP (RTP/H.323/SIP, IETF RSVP/NSIS QoS signaling and SIP preconditions), and (iii) network management (SNMP manager/"master agent"/"sub‑agent" polling architectures). This is a broad, interoperable skill set — exactly the skill set the '020's specification assumes when it describes a dMAG with a "routing module," a "provisioning module," and a "master agent"/"sub‑agent" pair.

---

2. The § 103(c) problem — and why the Lemko art is still usable

This is the crux, and it is frequently gotten wrong.

Key point: while § 103(c) disqualifies art qualifying only under 102(e)/(f)/(g) when commonly owned, it says nothing about printed publications under 102(a)/(b). An inventor's own pre‑critical‑date publication is a statutory bar against himself (102(b) contains no "by others" limitation for printed publications). Lemko's 2004–2006 dMA applications therefore remain fully available even though Lemko is the common assignee and Pan the common inventor.

Corollary warning for the challenger: the single most on‑point document — US 8,706,105 — is unavailable. Its FIG. 2 (plural dMAGs 202/204/206, per‑dMAG node groups 208/210/212, separate private IP networks 214/216/218, dMAG interface 222) and its FIG. 5/¶¶0053–0058 (home dMA node register; visitor dMA node register; visitor dMA node HLR; visitor dMA node VLR) map almost 1:1 onto the '020's own FIG. 2/FIG. 5 and onto most of claim 1. But because its publication post‑dates 2008‑07‑11 and its inventive entity is identical, it cannot be used. That overlap is nevertheless the strongest evidence that the register architecture was Lemko's own known design as of mid‑2008 — useful for a motivation argument, but not as § 102/§ 103 art.

I also note the page flags US 7,856,233 and US 8,706,105 with the examiner‑citation asterisk in the forward table, and the examiner‑cited references in the list include US 2005/0220054 A1 (Meier) and US 2005/0249176 A1 (O'Neill) — both used below.

---

3. Claim 1 — element‑by‑element mapping and the primary combination

3.1 Claim 1 breakdown

3.2 Primary combination ("Combination A")

US 2006/0098661 A1 (Lemko) in view of US 2006/0234747 A1 / US 2006/0234774 A1 (Lemko), further in view of US 2002/0061746 A1 (GLR) or US 2004/0253949 A1 (Boeing VLRs), further in view of US 2005/0249176 A1 (O'Neill)

• '661/'747/'774 supply: the dMA network of co‑equal nodes peer‑connected over an IP data network, edge call switching, the gateway to the PSTN/legacy networks, and the HLR/VLR/CLR database layer with per‑node registers.
• '746 (GLR) / '949 (platform VLR) supply the register taxonomy: a register that identifies entities local to a domain, a register that identifies visiting entities, and separate HLR/VLR‑style records containing calling information for the subscribers of those entities — i.e., claim 1's first/second/third/fourth data.
• '176 (O'Neill) supplies the path‑reservation‑then‑confirm signalling and the admission‑control decision inside the access node/router that terminates the path.

3.3 Motivation to combine (articulated, not merely "same field")

1. The '020 states the problem itself. The Background (¶[0005] of the family) says: "The OAMP services should be capable of servicing the changing topology of the dMA network," and the dMA nodes "may roam between different dMAGs." A POSITA seeking a register design that tracks a changing node topology is directly pointed to the roaming‑database art (GLR/VLR/HLR), which exists for exactly that purpose.
2. Two‑level roaming is the known solution to a two‑level mobility problem. The '020 claims roaming at two levels (dMA node visiting a dMAG; subscriber visiting a dMA node). The art already solves this generically: GLR ('746) and platform VLR ('949) introduce an intermediate register tier precisely to handle mobile serving entities carrying mobile subscribers. Applying that known tiering to dMA nodes is the ordinary, expected use of a known technique for its known purpose.
3. QoS admission control is the known requirement for carrying voice over a private IP network. Since the dMA network's entire premise is substituting an IP transport for MSC backhaul (spec Background ¶[0002]–[0004]), and since the dMAG's provisioning module is expressly "responsible for provisioning resources to a particular call, such as reserving or dedicating one or more components of the dMAG, dMA node and private IP network," the POSITA implementing that function would reach for the standard IP reservation mechanism (RSVP/NSIS/SIP preconditions) — O'Neill's access‑node admission control and its reserve/confirm exchanges.
4. Predictable results / KSR. Each element performs its established function (peer IP call switching; roaming register lookup; path reservation) and the combination yields no more than the expected aggregate: a call from the legacy network is routed to a roaming dMA node over a reserved IP path. This is the paradigm KSR Int'l v. Teleflex case — "a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."

---

4. Dependent claims

---

5. Secondary/alternative combinations a challenger could run

• Combination B (single‑reference‑lean): US 2006/0098661 A1 alone for the network/gateway/routing architecture, plus US 2005/0249176 A1 only for the reserve/confirm steps — the smallest defensible two‑reference § 103 case.
• Combination C (roaming‑centric): US 2007/0287452 A1 (Lemko, roamer registration with visiting‑node address fields) + US 2002/0061746 A1 (GLR) + US 2005/0220054 A1 (Meier/WLCCP — context transfer and "least‑cost path" selection as a node roams) + US 2005/0249176 A1 (O'Neill). Useful if the Patent Owner argues the dMA‑specific art is insufficiently enabling of node‑level roaming.
• Combination D (infrastructure‑agnostic): US 6,539,237 (Cisco — integrated wireless communications across private/public network environments) + US 2004/0253949 A1 (Boeing VLRs) + US 2005/0249176 A1 (O'Neill). This avoids all Lemko art, at the cost of losing the express "dMA" terminology.

---

6. Where the attack is weak — and what the Patent Owner will argue

Be candid about these; they are the likely battleground:

1. The "plural dMAGs / a different private IP network per group of dMA nodes" element. The cleanest disclosure is Lemko's own US 8,706,105 — which is unavailable (see §2). The available Lemko 2006 publications disclose a peer‑to‑peer node mesh more than a multi‑gateway hierarchy, and my verification of US 2007/0202847 A1 was incomplete. A Patent Owner will argue this limitation is not met. A challenger must find a non‑disqualified reference showing plural gateway nodes each fronting a distinct group of base‑station/subscriber nodes over distinct IP transport — the GLR art (US 2002/0061746 A1) and US 6,539,237 are the most promising starting points, but this needs to be nailed down.
2. The specific four‑register taxonomy. Claim 1's first/second/third/fourth‑data language is drafted tightly around FIG. 5. The examiner could accept the GLR/platform‑VLR model as disclosing it, but the mapping is by analogy (a "visiting dMA node" is not literally a "visiting subscriber"). Expect an argument that the node‑level register tier is not taught outside Lemko's own later work.
3. Motivation‑to‑combine discipline. KSR does not license "same field, same assignee, same inventor" as a per se motivation. Indeed, the PTAB record shows a challenger being faulted for exactly that: an expert opined that two Norand patents should be combined because of common inventors/assignee and "similar elements," and the declaration was rejected because "the mere mention of a particular piece of hardware with no further discussion of why or how the references would be combined is insufficient evidence." (IPR declaration excerpt, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1474637](/patent/1474637)/…) The motivation in §3.3 must be tied to the claimed function (multi‑level roaming register + end‑to‑end path reservation over IP), not to corporate authorship.
4. Secondary considerations. Lemko has a documented commercial‑success narrative: the 2013 AT&T Labs demonstration of Node1, the 2012 industry NFV white paper, AT&T's characterization of Lemko's approach as a "radical design," and a claimed >7‑fold cost reduction (litigation filings, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/16059205; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558047](/patent/1558047)/…). A nexus between that success and these claims would have to be established, but it is the obvious rebuttal. Also note the E.D. Tex. 2:25‑cv‑00305 action and the Piccadilly Patent Funding security interest — the patent is live, monetized, and will be defended.
5. Related‑patent IPR history cuts both ways. IPRs were filed against related Lemko patents (IPR2023‑00529 and IPR2023‑00531, involving US 7,653,414 and US 7,855,988) using art such as Flore, Meier and Gollnick; the Patent Owner's Response to the ‑00531 petition argued Flore fails on the "distributed mobile architecture" and "home DMA register" limitations (docketalarm excerpts). That shows both that broad § 103 challenges to this family have been tried, and that Lexicographic claim construction of "dMA"/"register" terms has been Lemko's chief shield. I have not verified the outcomes of those IPRs; they should be checked before relying on them.

---

7. Bottom line

• Claims 1, 9 and 13 are, in my assessment, reasonably vulnerable to § 103 over a combination of (i) Lemko's own pre‑July‑2007 § 102(b)/102(a) dMA publications (US 2006/0098661 A1; US 2006/0234747 A1 / US 2006/0234774 A1; US 2007/0202847 A1), (ii) a roaming‑register reference modeling visiting entities and their subscribers (US 2002/0061746 A1 GLR, and/or US 2004/0253949 A1 Boeing platform VLRs, and/or US 2007/0287452 A1 Lemko roamer registration), and (iii) an IP/admission‑control reference supplying the path‑reserve‑then‑confirm signalling (US 2005/0249176 A1 O'Neill / US 7,366,152; also US 7,050,414 Lucent). The strongest single motivation is the '020's own stated problem: OAMP that services a changing dMA topology.
• Claims 5–8 and 11–12 are weak and should fall with claim 1 plus routine‑practice reasoning (SNMP master/sub‑agent polling; pre‑provisioning; storing IP addresses in registers). Claim 12 in particular is nearly admitted in the specification's own FIG. 6 narrative.
• Claims 2, 3 and 4 are the least certain. Claim 2 depends on how the node‑level home register is mapped; claim 3 depends on locating a verifiable "prior path/call‑traffic‑driven routing" reference (Lemko's DPR work, US 7,653,414, is the lead to confirm); claim 4 is a routine GUI design choice but its dependency on claim 3 means it survives if claim 3 survives.
• The decisive practical constraint is § 103(c)/"by another." The most damning reference — Lemko's US 8,706,105 / US 2009/0327819 A1, whose FIG. 2 and FIG. 5 replicate the claimed topology and register table — is not available prior art to the '020, because its publication post‑dates 2008‑07‑11 and its sole inventive entity (ShaoWei Pan) is identical to the '020's. Any § 103 challenge must be built around that hole, and the "plural dMAGs with a distinct private IP network per group" limitation is where it will be contested.